I’ve been reviewing films since 1994, published in a newspaper in Corrales, New Mexico, the Corrales Comment. This year I finally decided to launch my film Web site to present my reviews to a larger audience.
Unlike some other Web sites (such as Rottentomatoes or Epinions), I only list reviews I have written. This is mostly for practical reasons: I don’t have the time or interest in editing and Web-publishing other critic’s reviews. Also, I see no need to duplicate other film review Web sites; they are doing a fine job as they are. Should the opportunity present itself, I’d be interested in possibly syndicating my columns, though for now the Web site is my focus.
At some point we hope to have a forum for visitors to express their feedback, as well as start a mailing list. As new reviews are posted, you will get a message with the first paragraph of my review; if you are interested, you can click on the link and see the entire article. I plan to post an average of two or three reviews per week.
The films I review are rated from one to five stars. The scheme goes something like this:
 |
One star: Garbage; a waste of good film and, more importantly, your time. |
 |
Two stars: Below average, but with some redeeming value; not recommended. |
 |
Three stars: An average film, worth a look if you’re otherwise interested; nothing great. |
 |
Four stars: A good film, worth your time and money; solid filmmaking and story. |
 |
Five stars: An excellent film, should be put on "must-see" lists; superior filmmaking. |
I list the stars and directors. Many audiences don’t pay much attention to film directors (unless it’s one of the top directors such as Steven Spielberg), but the director dramatically shapes the film and deserves credit (or blame). If a screenwriter is notable, I mention him or her as well.
I also list the blatant product placements in the films. I do this for several reasons; one, I think that audiences should be aware when they are watching an advertisement; and two, I want to call attention to the practice. I don’t necessarily object to product placements as long as they are minor or integral to the story. If you are watching a breakfast scene, there’s no need to creatively hide the labels, or manufacture fake generic brands. On rare occasions, specific products are important to the story (one film that jumps to mind is American Psycho, with its designer name-conscious milieu.) However, there’s no need for an actor to be off-center in a film frame so that we can see the Coke machine in clear focus behind him. And everyone involved with the 2000 Federal Express commercial Castaway should be embarrassed at the over-the-top promotion.
I generally don’t list the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) rating (G, PG, R, etc.). I understand why films are rated, but I have never found the ratings to be useful so I don’t list them. The rating system makes no sense, and often seems to assume that brief scenes of nudity in service of a story is more dangerous to children than extended scenes of killing and violence. (For the record, I don’t think that either is necessarily harmful to most kids.)
I also believe that parents should decide for themselves what they should let their children watch, and not abdicate that responsibility to MPAA head Jack Valenti and his crew of film raters. What an anonymous group of raters feel is appropriate for the average child of a certain age should be irrelevant to a responsible parent who is concerned about what his or her child sees.
The simple fact is that, while profanity, nudity, violence, etc. should not be foisted on children, seeing that in films is not going to corrupt an otherwise well-balanced kid. Films often reflect real life, and the real world contains nudity, profanity, violence, and all those other "nasty" things. What with terrorism, snipers, and bombings in the news, I’d say that what kids see in their entertainment is the least of our children’s problems.
Occasionally, when relevant, I try to infuse a social conscience into my reviews. In my review of Erin Brockovich, for example, I included a short report on a real-life, ongoing case of corporate poisonings and injustice that was much worse than the incident in the film: the Union Carbide spill at Bhopal, India, that killed and poisoned thousands. The CEO of Union Carbide (now Praxair), Warren Anderson, disappeared before he could be served a gross negligence lawsuit, and the company did its best to protect him from having to answer for his actions.
Also, if a film touches on a topic of which I have some knowledge, I may inject some brief commentary where relevant. Some may find this sort of information beyond the scope of film reviews, but I make no apologies for it. When audiences step out of theaters and into the real world, they should be aware of what’s going on there too.
Unlike some film critics who only cover the big features, I try to make time to see the B-movies, the lesser-known foreign films, and so on. B-horror is a particular favorite of mine, such as many in the Full Moon series (I’ll not mention Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, but the Puppet Master series, for example, is great fun). Yes, I’ve seen the entire Leprechaun series, as well as Killjoy (1 and 2), the Nightmare on Elm Streets, the Texas Chainsaw Massacres, the endless Friday the 13ths… The demands of critiquing mainstream films leave less and less time for the beloved B-flicks, but I do keep one foot firmly planted in that genre.
Though the main thrust of this Web site is film criticism and reviews, I’ll post a feature article every month or two. Future topics may include a section of overlooked films, an in-depth analysis of a film, comments on filmmaking, etc.
In the Archives you will find my past reviews. In general, current and recent films will be transferred to the Archives after about a month. With hundreds of reviews dating back eight years, only a selected sample of my past reviews are included in the archives. Film criticism is only a part-time occupation, and even if I did nothing but watch new films day and night, I still couldn’t see all of them and wouldn’t have time to think (and write) about the ones I did see. I will try to give a representative sampling of films that interest me.
You will notice that this site contains no advertising, no pop-up ads, no nothing. I am not trying to make a dime off my readers, nor collect information from them. Advertisers will have no say in anything I write or promote. I will continue to lose money on this site; it is not a money-making venture but instead hopefully a source for thoughtful, considered film comment. This site is partially funded by the money I make as a columnist for my printed reviews. If you like what I do and how I do it, please visit the site regularly and tell a friend. Thank you for your interest in RadfordReviews.com, and I hope you enjoy my reviews.
Thanks to Kevin Christopher of Binarymojo.net, Web guru extraordinaire, for the Web site design; Patty Melquist for retinue assistance; and Meg Connors for typing up archive reviews. Brought to you by the letters "W" and "Z."
© Benjamin Radford
Return to the Radford Reviews index page